DOCSLIB.ORG

Science, Technology and Society: a Philosophical Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Science, Technology and Society: A Philosophical Perspective Wenceslao J. Gonzalez (Editor) General Editor Wenceslao J. Gonzalez SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY: A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE Copyright © 2005 by Netbiblo. Copyright © by Wenceslao J. Gonzalez. ISBN: 0-9729892-2-6 Editor: Cristina Seco Printed and bound by Gesbiblo, S.L. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that neither the author nor the publisher is engaged in rendering legal, accounting, futures/securities trading, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of competent professional personnel should be sought. Front cover: Gesbiblo, S.L. First Published 2005 by Netbiblo, S.L. CONTENTS Contributors .......................................................................................................................... v Preface: The Relevance of Science, Technology and Society: The “Social Turn” Wenceslao J. Gonzalez ......................................................................................................... ix PART I: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 1. The Philosophical Approach to Science, Technology and Society Wenceslao J. Gonzalez ...................................................................................................... 3 2. Objectivity and Professional Duties Regarding Science and Technology Kristin Shrader-Frechette ................................................................................................. 51 PART II: STS: FROM THE PRESENT SITUATION TO THE FUTURE PROJECTION 3. Metascientific Analysis and Methodological Learning in Regulatory Science. On the Relationship between Analysis of Science and Scientific Practice José Luis Luján .................................................................................................................. 83 4. How to Reform Science and Technology Kristin Shrader-Frechette ................................................................................................. 107 PART III: THE RELATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 5. Progress and Social Impact in Design Sciences Anna Estany Profitos ........................................................................................................ 135 6. Experiments, Instruments and Society: Radioisotopes in Biomedical Research María Jesús Santesmases .................................................................................................. 159 PART IV: THE NEXUS BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY 7. Philosophical Patterns of Rationality and Technological Change Ramón Queraltó Moreno .................................................................................................. 179 Subject Index ......................................................................................................................... 207 Index of Names ...................................................................................................................... 211 iii ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS VOLUME Wenceslao J. Gonzalez is professor of logic and philosophy of science at the University of A Coruña (Spain). He has been vicedean of the School of Humanities and president of the Committee of Doctoral Programs at the University. He has been a visiting researcher at the Universities of St. Andrews, Münster and London (London School of Economics), as well as Visiting fellow at the Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh. He has given lectures at the Universities of Pittsburgh, Stanford, Quebec and Helsinki. The conferences in which he has participated include those organized by the Universities of Uppsala, New South Wales, Bologne and Canterbury (New Zealand). He has edited 20 volumes and published 70 papers. He is the editor of the monographic issues on Philosophy and Methodology of Economics (1998) and Lakatos’s Philosophy Today (2001). His writings include “Economic Prediction and Human Activity. An Analysis of Prediction in Economics from Action Theory” (1994), “On the Theoretical Basis of Prediction in Economics” (1996), “Rationality in Economics and Scientific Predictions: A Critical Reconstruction of Bounded Rationality and its Role in Economic Predictions” (1997), “Lakatos’s Approach on Prediction and Novel Facts” (2001), “Rationality in Experimental Economics: An Analysis of R. Selten’s Approach” (2003), “From Erklären- Verstehen to Prediction-Understanding: The Methodological Framework in Economics (2003), and “The Many Faces of Popper’s Methodological Approach to Prediction” (2004). Kristin Shrader-Frechette is professor at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. She works at the Department of Philosophy as well as at the Department of Biological Sciences. She is currently president of the International Society for Environmental Ethics (ISEE). Previously, she has been president of two societies in the US: the Society for Philosophy and Technology and the Risk Assessment and Policy Association. She is author of more than 340 papers in this field of Science, Technology and Society. In addition, she has published 14 books related to STS. Many of her books deal with ethical issues related to technological risk and their environmental consequences: Nuclear Power and Public Policy (1980); Science Policy, Ethics, and Economic Methodology (1984); Risk and Rationality (1991); Ethics of Scientific Research (1994); Technology and Human Values (1997); … Her works have been translated into Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Russian, and Spanish. She is widely in demand as a lecturer by universities, governments, and industrial groups as well as National Academies of Science. She has been invited to prestigious colloquia such as the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science or the Pittsburgh v vi Science, Technology and Society: A Philosophical Perspective Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science. Currently she is working on a volume on Public Ethics: Citizenship and Duties of Advocacy. José Luis Luján is senior lecturer [titular professor] of logic and philosophy of science at the University of the Balearic Islands. He has participated as a researcher in several European research projects and currently is leading scientist of a research project of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science on regulatory science and technological risks. He has coauthored books such as El artefacto de la inteligencia (1989); Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad: Una introducción al estudio social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología (1996); La imagen social de las nuevas Tecnologías biológicas (1997); Violence: From Biology to Society (1997); and Ciencia y Política del riesgo (2000). He is coeditor of Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad: Lecturas seleccionadas (1997), Filosofía de la Tecnología (1998), and Gobernar los riesgos: Ciencia y valores en la sociedad del riesgo (2004). Anna Estany Profitos is professor of logic and philosophy of science at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and head of the Department of Philosophy. She was awarded a Master of Arts by the University of Indiana and has researched at the University of California at San Diego. Among her books are Modelos de cambio científico (1990), Introducción a la Filosofía de la Ciencia (1993), Manual de prácticas de Filosofía de la Ciencia (2000), La fascinación por el saber (2001) and ¿Eureka? El trasfondo de un descubrimiento sobre el cáncer y la Genética Molecular (2003). She is the author of papers such as “Reconstrucción de casos históricos a partir del modelo de progreso científico de L. Laudan” (1998), “Thomas Kuhn: Hacia una metateoría unificada de la Ciencia” (1998), “Ventajas epistémicas de la cognición socialmente distribuida” (2001) and “The Theory- laden Thesis of Observation in the Light of Cognitive Psychology” (2001). María Jesús Santesmases is senior scientist [titular researcher] at the Higher Council of Scientific Research (CSIC) in Madrid. She has edited the monographic issues of Arbor on Orígenes de la Biología Molecular: Contextos internacionales y tradiciones locales (1997) and Ciencia y Tecnología en el CSIC: Una visión de género (2002). Among her books are Establecimiento de la Bioquímica y la Biología Molecular en España (1997); Antibióticos en la autarquía (1999); Científicas en España (1940-1970): Profesionalización y modernización social (2000); and Entre Cajal y Ochoa (2001). She has published in the following journals: Isis, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, History and Philosophy of Life Sciences, Theoria, Social Studies of Science, and Minerva. Ramón Queraltó Moreno is professor of philosophy at the University of Seville. His realm of research is present tendencies in thought and especially philosophy of technology. He is a correspondent member of the Académie Internationale de Philosophie des Sciences and the editor of the journal Argumentos de Razón técnica. He is head of a research group on “Science, Technology and Society” of the High Council of Scientific Research (CSIC). He About the Contributors to this Volume vii is the author of eight books, among them are Mundo, Tecnología y Razón en el fin de la Modernidad (1993), K. Popper, de la Epistemología a la Metafísica (1996), Razionalità tecnica e mondo futuro. Una eredità per il terzo millennio (2002), and Ética, Tecnología y Valores en la sociedad global (2003). He has published widely. Among his papers are “Does Technology ‘Construct’ Scientific
Recommended publications
  • Michael Polanyi and Early Neoliberalism

    Michael Polanyi and Early Neoliberalism

    MICHAEL POLANYI AND EARLY NEOLIBERALISM Martin Beddeleem Keywords: Friedrich Hayek, Louis Rougier, Michael Polanyi, Mont-Pèlerin Society, neoliberalism, planning, Walter Lippmann ABSTRACT1 Between the late 1930s and the 1950s, Michael Polanyi came in close contact with a diverse cast of intellectuals seeking a renewal of the liberal doctrine. The elaboration of this “neoliberalism” happened through a transnational collaboration between economists, philosophers, and social theorists, united in their rejection of central planning. Defining a common agenda for this “early neoliberalism” offered an opportunity to discard the old laissez-faire doctrine and restore a supervisory role of the state. Ultimately, post-war dissensions regarding the direction of these efforts led Polanyi away from the neoliberal core. Between the publication of his pamphlet on the failures of economic planning in the Soviet Union in 1936 (CF, 61-95) and that of The Logic of Liberty in 1951, Michael Polanyi progressively lost interest in chemistry and started to investigate the political and sociological conditions necessary to scientific freedom and the pursuit of truth. During that time, he became involved with a group of scholars who, equally, perceived the democratic collapse of Europe as a wake-up call for a restatement of its liberal tradition. Whereas the values of individual dignity and social progress that liber- alism carried were needed then more than ever, they agreed that the method to achieve these ideals had become obsolete. Therefore, they focused their efforts on revamping a science of liberalism, which could answer the scientific claims of plannism and totalitar- ian ideologies. Tradition & Discovery: The Journal of the Polanyi Society 45:3 © 2019 by the Polanyi Society 31 For two decades, Michael Polanyi took part in the inception and the consolida- tion of “early neoliberalism” (Schulz-Forberg 2018; Beddeleem 2019), a period that predates the later development of neoliberalism from the 1960s onwards.
  • Historians of Technology in the Real World: Reflections on the Pursuit of Policy-Oriented History

    Historians of Technology in the Real World: Reflections on the Pursuit of Policy-Oriented History

    Historians of Technology in the Real World: Reflections on the Pursuit of Policy-Oriented History Richard F. Hirsh Technology and Culture, Volume 52, Number 1, January 2011, pp. 6-20 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/tech.2011.0039 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tech/summary/v052/52.1.hirsh.html Access provided by Virginia Polytechnic Inst. __ACCESS_STATEMENT__ St.University __ACCESS_STATEMENT__ (Viva) (6 Feb 2014 13:11 GMT) 02_52.1hirsh 6–20:03_49.3dobraszczyk 568– 1/22/11 7:49 AM Page 6 Historians of Technology in the Real World Reflections on the Pursuit of Policy-Oriented History RICHARDF.HIRSH Nearly all historians writing about their craft begin by explaining the value of studying the past. According to the authors of a popular primer, history represents a collective memory that provides an awareness of past events, helping us shape our present and future.1 History has great practical signif- icance, notes another academic, because “intelligent action” draws on past experience.2 As a consequence of the way pedagogues extol the relevance of their work, many high-school students can paraphrase Santayana’s dictum that “[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”3 Despite widespread acceptance of the notion that history provides tan- gible benefits, historians usually remain reluctant to apply “lessons” to real- world situations, especially in the realms of public and business policy. Eager to be viewed as unbiased, dispassionate observers of events, most aca- demic historians seem happy to write primarily for their peers.
  • Curriculum Vitae Ned O'gorman Associate Professor Department Of

    Curriculum Vitae Ned O'gorman Associate Professor Department Of

    Curriculum Vitae Ned O’Gorman Associate Professor Department of Communication University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 325 Communication Building, MC-456 1207 Oregon St. Urbana, IL 61801 USA Office Phone: 217.265.0859 Email: [email protected] Web: http://nogorman.org Education Ph.D., 2005, The Pennsylvania State University M.Div., Covenant Theological Seminary M.A., University of Tennessee B.A., Saint Louis University Academic Appointments and Affiliations 2012-present, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, University of Illinois 2015-16, Visiting Faculty Fellow, Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, University of Virginia 2005-present, Core Faculty, Center for Writing Studies, University of Illinois 2010-present, Core Faculty, Program for Arms Control, Defense, and International Security 2012-13, Faculty Fellow, Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois 2005-2012, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, University of Illinois Awards & Honors 2103-18, Conrad Humanities Professorial Scholar, University of Illinois 2014, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Dean’s Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching, University of Illinois 2012-13, Center for Advanced Study Fellow, University of Illinois 2013-15, Faculty Member, INTERSECT initiative in Technology Studies, Graduate College, University of Illinois. 2010, National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow (through Vectors/USC Summer Institute) 2010, Illinois Program for Research in the Humanities, Collaborative Research Project Award 2007-08, Humanities
  • What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R

    What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R

    HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Vol. IV - What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R. J. Gómez WHAT IS THAT THING CALLED PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY? R. J. Gómez Department of Philosophy. California State University (LA). USA Keywords: Adorno, Aristotle, Bunge, Ellul, Feenberg, Habermas, Heidegger, Horkheimer, Jonas, Latour, Marcuse, Mumford, Naess, Shrader-Frechette, artifact, assessment, determinism, ecosophy, ends, enlightenment, efficiency, epistemology, enframing, ideology, life-form, megamachine, metaphysics, method, naturalistic, fallacy, new, ethics, progress, rationality, rule, science, techno-philosophy Contents 1. Introduction 2. Locating technology with respect to science 2.1. Structure and Content 2.2. Method 2.3. Aim 2.4. Pattern of Change 3. Locating philosophy of technology 4. Early philosophies of technology 4.1. Aristotelianism 4.2. Technological Pessimism 4.3. Technological Optimism 4.4. Heidegger’s Existentialism and the Essence of Technology 4.5. Mumford’s Megamachinism 4.6. Neomarxism 4.6.1. Adorno-Horkheimer 4.6.2. Marcuse 4.6.3. Habermas 5. Recent philosophies of technology 5.1. L. Winner 5.2. A. Feenberg 5.3. EcosophyUNESCO – EOLSS 6. Technology and values 6.1. Shrader-Frechette Claims 6.2. H Jonas 7. Conclusions SAMPLE CHAPTERS Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary A philosophy of technology is mainly a critical reflection on technology from the point of view of the main chapters of philosophy, e.g., metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Technology has had a fast development since the middle of the 20th century , especially ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Vol. IV - What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R.
  • The Philosophical Underpinnings of Educational Research

    The Philosophical Underpinnings of Educational Research

    The Philosophical Underpinnings of Educational Research Lindsay Mack Abstract This article traces the underlying theoretical framework of educational research. It outlines the definitions of epistemology, ontology and paradigm and the origins, main tenets, and key thinkers of the 3 paradigms; positivist, interpetivist and critical. By closely analyzing each paradigm, the literature review focuses on the ontological and epistemological assumptions of each paradigm. Finally the author analyzes not only the paradigm’s weakness but also the author’s own construct of reality and knowledge which align with the critical paradigm. Key terms: Paradigm, Ontology, Epistemology, Positivism, Interpretivism The English Language Teaching (ELT) field has moved from an ad hoc field with amateurish research to a much more serious enterprise of professionalism. More teachers are conducting research to not only inform their teaching in the classroom but also to bridge the gap between the external researcher dictating policy and the teacher negotiating that policy with the practical demands of their classroom. I was a layperson, not an educational researcher. Determined to emancipate myself from my layperson identity, I began to analyze the different philosophical underpinnings of each paradigm, reading about the great thinkers’ theories and the evolution of social science research. Through this process I began to examine how I view the world, thus realizing my own construction of knowledge and social reality, which is actually quite loose and chaotic. Most importantly, I realized that I identify most with the critical paradigm assumptions and that my future desired role as an educational researcher is to affect change and challenge dominant social and political discourses in ELT.
  • The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: a Personal View1

    The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: a Personal View1

    Weber/Editor’s Comments EDITOR’S COMMENTS The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View1 Many years ago I attended a conference on interpretive research in information systems. My goal was to learn more about interpretive research. In my Ph.D. education, I had studied primarily positivist research methods—for example, experiments, surveys, and field studies. I knew little, however, about interpretive methods. I hoped to improve my knowledge of interpretive methods with a view to using them in due course in my research work. A plenary session at the conference was devoted to a panel discussion on improving the acceptance of interpretive methods within the information systems discipline. During the session, a number of speakers criticized positivist research harshly. Many members in the audience also took up the cudgel to denigrate positivist research. If any other positivistic researchers were present at the session beside me, like me they were cowed. None of us dared to rise and speak in defence of positivism. Subsequently, I came to understand better the feelings of frustration and disaffection that many early interpretive researchers in the information systems discipline experienced when they attempted to publish their work. They felt that often their research was evaluated improperly and treated unfairly. They contended that colleagues who lacked knowledge of interpretive research methods controlled most of the journals. As a result, their work was evaluated using criteria attuned to positivism rather than interpretivism. My most-vivid memory of the panel session, however, was my surprise at the way positivism was being characterized by my colleagues in the session.
  • Disruptive Technology Assessment Game 'DTAG' Handbook V0.1

    Disruptive Technology Assessment Game 'DTAG' Handbook V0.1

    Disruptive Technology Assessment Game ‘DTAG’ Handbook V0.1 Executive Summary What is the DTAG? The Disruptive Technology Assessment Game (DTAG) is a table-top seminar wargame, used to assess potential future technologies and their impact on military operations and operating environment. How is it played? There are four distinct steps in executing a DTAG experiment. The first two are part of the planning process, prior to playing the game. Step 1: Identify Possible Future Technologies that are under development and are of interest to the military. Step 2 – Create Ideas of Systems (IoS) cards from the technologies identified. Specific technologies, or combinations of technologies are combined with equipment to create new systems that could be employed by the military or by an adversary. These are described on cards. Step 3 – Play the DTAG. Figure 1 summarizes the process. Red teams and Blue teams both plan courses of action in the context of a scenario & vignette. After the initial confrontation of plans, which establishes the baseline, the teams plan again with the addition of future technology from the IoS cards. The second confrontation highlights the effect that the technology has on the plans and the wargame outcome. Figure 1: The DTAG Process Step 4 – Assess the results of the wargame through questions and analysis of data captured. Who plays it? The DTAG unites Technology experts, Military and Analysts providing a broad perspective on the potential impacts of future technology on military operations. The approach allows for an element of unconstrained thinking and the wargame-like rounds encourage open communication opportunities. Why should a DTAG be played, and when? It is most useful when assessing technology that is a prototype or at early stage of development, or technology that is not in widespread use by the military.
  • The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others Others and Oakeshott Antinomies: of Method the VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME

    The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others Others and Oakeshott Antinomies: of Method the VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME

    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Philosophy Faculty Publications Philosophy 2018 The ethoM d of Antinomies: Oakeshott nda Others Stephen Turner University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/phi_facpub Scholar Commons Citation Turner, Stephen, "The eM thod of Antinomies: Oakeshott nda Others" (2018). Philosophy Faculty Publications. 309. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/phi_facpub/309 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others STEPHEN TURNER Email: [email protected] Web: http://philosophy.usf.edu/faculty/sturner/ Abstract: Michael Oakeshott employed a device of argument and analysis that appears in a number of other thinkers, where it is given the name “antinomies.” These differ from binary oppositions or contradictories in that the two poles are bound to- gether. In this discussion, the nature of this binding is explored in detail, in large part in relation to Oakeshott’s own usages, such as his discussion of the relation of faith and skepticism, between collective goal-oriented associations and those based on contract, and between a legal regime based on neutral rules and one oriented to policy goals . Other examples might include Weber’s distinction between the politics of intention and the politics of responsibility. Moreover, such ambiguous concepts as “rights,” have antinomic interpretations. In each of these cases, the full realization of one ideal led, in practice, to consequenc- es associated with the other: in political practice, neither polar ideal was realizable without concessions to the other.
  • Neil Postman

    Neil Postman

    Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change by Neil Postman Talk delivered in Denver Colorado March 28, 1998 … I doubt that the 21st century will pose for us problems that are more stunning, disorienting or complex than those we faced in this century, or the 19th, 18th, 17th, or for that matter, many of the centuries before that. But for those who are excessively nervous about the new millennium, I can provide, right at the start, some good advice about how to confront it. …. Here is what Henry David Thoreau told us: “All our inventions are but improved means to an unimproved end.” Here is what Goethe told us: “One should, each day, try to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if possible, speak a few reasonable words.” Socrates told us: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Rabbi Hillel told us: “What is hateful to thee, do not do to another.” And here is the prophet Micah: “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.” And I could say, if we had the time, (although you know it well enough) what Jesus, Isaiah, Mohammad, Spinoza, and Shakespeare told us. It is all the same: There is no escaping from ourselves. The human dilemma is as it has always been, and it is a delusion to believe that the technological changes of our era have rendered irrelevant the wisdom of the ages and the sages. Nonetheless, having said this, I know perfectly well that because we do live in a technological age, we have some special problems that Jesus, Hillel, Socrates, and Micah did not and could not speak of.
  • Gao-20-246G, Technology Assessment Design Handbook

    Gao-20-246G, Technology Assessment Design Handbook

    HANDBOOK Technology Assessment Design Handbook Handbook for Key Steps and Considerations in the Design of Technology Assessments GAO-20-246G December 2019 Contents Preface 1 Chapter 1 The Importance of Technology Assessment Design 6 1.1 Reasons to Conduct and Uses of a Technology Assessment 6 1.2 Importance of Spending Time on Design 8 Chapter 2 Technology Assessment Scope and Design 8 2.1 Sound Technology Assessment Design 9 2.2 Phases and Considerations for Technology Assessment Design 9 2.2.1 GAO Technology Assessment Design Examples 14 Chapter 3 Approaches to Selected Technology Assessment Design and Implementation Challenges 18 3.1 Ensuring Technology Assessment Products are Useful for Congress and Others 19 3.2 Determining Policy Goals and Measuring Impact 20 3.3 Researching and Communicating Complicated Issues 20 3.4 Engaging All Relevant Stakeholders 21 Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22 Appendix II Summary of Steps for GAO’s General Engagement Process 35 Appendix III Example Methods for Technology Assessment 38 Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44 Page i GAO-20-246G Technology Assessment Handbook Tables Table 1: Summary of GAO’s Technology Assessment Process 3 Table 2: Examples for Technology Assessment Objectives that Describe Status and Challenges to Development of a Technology 15 Table 3: Examples for Technology Assessment Objectives that Assess Opportunities and Challenges that May Result from the Use of a Technology 16 Table 4: Examples for Technology Assessment Objectives that Assess Cost-Effectiveness,
  • Technology, Development and Economic Crisis: the Schumpeterian Legacy

    Technology, Development and Economic Crisis: the Schumpeterian Legacy

    CIMR Research Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 23 Technology, development and economic crisis: the Schumpeterian legacy by Rinaldo Evangelista University of Camerino Piazza Cavour, 19/F, 62032 Camerino (IT) +39-0737-403074 [email protected] June 2015 ISSN 2052-062X Abstract This contribution aims at highlighting the complex, non-linear and potentially contradictory nature of the relationships between technological progress, economic growth and social development, in particular within the context of market based economies. The main (provocative) argument put forward in the paper is that the recent neo-Schumpeterian literature, while providing fundamental contributions to our understanding of innovation, has contributed to the rising of a positivistic reading of the relationship between technology, economy and society, with technology being able to guaranty strong economic growth and (implicitly) social welfare. This is confirmed by the fact that, contrary to other influential heterodox economic schools and Schumpeter himself, in the recent neo- Schumpeterian literature technology is only rarely associated to macroeconomic market failures such as systemic crises, structural unemployment, and the growth of social and economic inequalities. It is also argued that the emergence of a “positivistic bias” in the neo-Schumpeterian literature has been associated to the dominance of a supply-side and micro-based view of the technology-economy relationships. Key words: Technology, Innovation, Schumpeter, Development, Crisis JEL codes: B52, O00, O30. 2 1. Introduction There is no doubt that the last economic crisis, with its depth, extension and length, could have, at least in principle, the potentiality of shaking at the fundamentals the dominant neo-liberal economic thinking and policy framework.
  • Kant's Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason And

    Kant's Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason And

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Institutional Research Information System University of Turin 372DOI 10.1515/kant-2014-0016Gabriele Gava KANT-STUDIEN 2014; 105(3): 372–393 Gabriele Gava Kant’s Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason and the Essential Ends of Reason Abstract: The paper analyses the definition of science as an architectonic unity, which Kant gives in the Architectonic of Pure Reason. I will show how this defini- tion is problematic, insofar as it is affected by the various ways in which the rela- tionship of reason to ends is discussed in this chapter of the Critique of Pure Rea- son. Kant sometimes claims that architectonic unity is only obtainable thanks to an actual reference to the essential practical ends of human reason, but he also identifies disciplines that do not make this reference as scientific. In order to find a solution to this apparent contradiction, I will first present Kant’s distinction be- tween a scholastic and a cosmic concept of philosophy. This distinction expresses Kant’s foreshadowing of his later insistence on the priority of practical philos- ophy within a true system of philosophy. Then, I will present a related distinction between technical and architectonic unity and show how Kant seems to use two different conceptions of science, one simply attributing systematic unity to science, the other claiming that science should consider the essential practical ends of human beings. I will propose a solution to this problem by arguing that, if we give a closer look to Kant’s claims, the unity of scientific disciplines can be considered architectonic without taking into consideration the essential practi- cal ends of human reason.